European Journal of English Language, Linguistics and Literature Vol. 2 No. 1, 2015 ISSN 2059-2027 Progressive Academic Publishing Page 62 www.idpublications.org MINORITY LANGUAGE LOSS: SOCIO-CULTURAL AND LINGUISTIC CAUSES Erdal Ayan, M.A./M.Sc. Hacettepe University Institute of Informatics Department of Information Technologies in Education TURKEY ABSTRACT The current study is a review article surveying on the reasons behind minority languages and language losses. It hypotheses language loss is not a simple process that could be explained by changes in societies, and/but there are serious and determining periods that triggers that unintended result such as social and linguistic causes. It goes beyond the causes like financial problems, political and ecological changes and human mobilizations within years. The study clarifies that socio-cultural and linguistic reasons may play a very important role in losing a language belonging particularly to minorities. It argues that socio-cultural tolerance as well as linguistic factors will contribute a lot more to survival of minority languages than applying strict political measurements and educational regulations. Keywords: Minority languages, language loss, socio-cultural and linguistic causes. INTRODUCTION Language is a symbol of a state or nation, as well as a representation of ethnic identity, not only for majority, but also for minority communities. It provides autonomy for people who are enjoying. Therefore, people of both societies have great desires to keep their languages alive and transfer them to new generations. However, minority languages have always had too little chance to survive when compared to the high prestige of majority languages. Owing to reasons ranging from nationalist language policies, linguistic to social reasons, many could not survive (e.g. Syriac and Ubykh in Turkey and Aborigine languages in Australia). In the twentieth century, reforms in linguistic rights resulted in multilingual policies of many countries, which had formerly nationalist language policy backgrounds. The countries started to change present policies which were threats to minority languages (See table 1 and 2), while some others are still continueing with monolingual policies like “one state, one nation, one language” (e.g. Brazil, and Turkey). 1 In the light of these facts, languages are still dying today. Romaine (2007), for instance, assumes that around half of the world languages have expired in the past five hundred years and also cites “as many as 60 to 90% of the world's approximately 6,900 languages may be at the risk of extinction within next 100 years” (115). In this point the most important criteria is the number of speakers, in that, as the linguistic authorities cleared, if a minority language usage falls under 70%, it will most probably die out. 2 There are still ongoing disputes about which one is the most decisive factor in minority language loss. In this regard, linguists stress some external and internal factors which lead minority language loss such as “politics”, “economic forces”, “religion”, “demographic factors”, “mass media”, “social identifiers”, and “ecology, natural disasters” (Crawford, 1 For further information; see Massini-Cagliari, 2003, p.3 ff; Brizić, 2006: 348. 2 “From Mother Tongue to Meal Ticket. Why the Welsh Language, is making a comeback”, article from “The Economist” published 11/08/2005.
27
Embed
Minority Language Loss Socio-Cultural and Linguistic ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
European Journal of English Language, Linguistics and Literature Vol. 2 No. 1, 2015 ISSN 2059-2027
1973 when Ireland joined in European Union the Irish language policy changed and Ireland
declined Irish usage in public. Today, it is estimated that just 13% of Irish society is native
speaker of Irish language and less than half can speak it fluently.10
According to Ó Riagáin
(1997), the reason behind this failure is closely related to “social and economic planning”; in
that, the immigrations from Ireland to the United States and other English-speaking countries
because of economical problems were turned into remigration to Ireland after the
developments in economy (as cited in Spolsky, 2004: 190). Irish language policy was not
ready to such kind of a turn back and so English speakers were taught Irish in central
territories; but, people in rural areas were not supported. Many people, speaking English
came back to these lands. Ireland lost control of this influx of migration and in the end the
Irish language was undermined by English.
As a matter of fact, the immigration was not the mere reason for this failure; it was, basically,
the result of several reasons which dated back to some important events in Irish history. First
of all, before these immigrations, there happened a “Great Famine” (it is also known Potato
Famine) in Ireland in the mid 19th
century and caused one million deaths in just four years.
The famine deeply affected Irish-speaking rural areas and Irish declined in this period. There
was English-speaking population in Northern Ireland and it had a potentially high rate
(Crystal, 2000: 71). Secondly, the Plantations, which were largely founded in Northern
Ireland by English government during English industrialization period in late 19th
century,
were dominantly populated by English-speaking Protestants immigrated from Great Britain.
According to Barbour (2000), English government encouraged English-speaking Protestants
against the dominance of Irish-speaking Catholics and besides Irish nationalist movement
focused mostly on “social and political progress” rather than the Irish language (35-6).
Additionally, the relations between Ireland and the U.S.A in especially on economic
investments to Ireland during the period of 1980s and 1990s have crucial effect on today's
condition of Irish language since Ireland is one of the few European countries accepting
English as an official language.11
Actually, the exact reason was the combination of many
factors as Fishman concluded:
An unparalleled combination of culturally, economically, politically and
demographically dislocating factors (occupation, warfare, transfer of populations,
the establishment of dominant English-speaking class in towns and urban areas
which later developed into all English cities, repeated famines, [...] legal
prohibitions against Irish, significant periods of de facto abandonment by most
major Church authorities, the rise of Anglo-Irish culture [...] and ongoing emigration
to English-dominant countries [...]) have all contributed to an early, continual and
still ongoing erosion of Irish in spite of the various substantial efforts (Fishman,
1991: 122-3, as cited in Spolsky, 2004: 190-1).
Revitalization of Hebrew was fairly different from Irish in terms of theory and practice.
Hebrew appeared as a “revitalized, re-vernacularized, re-standardized, secularized and
modernized language”. Revitalization of Hebrew in Palestine started in 1890s, but before
that, in his study What Do You Lose When You Lose Your Language?, Joshua Fishman noted
(1996), Hebrew had not been used for two thousand years and so there were no native
speakers in Hebrew and it was just spoken by Jewish society (7). Interestingly, there was an
10 Further information; see <http://www.ethnologue.com/14/show_language.asp?code=GLI>. It is written as 5% in this article; “How more official languages could eventually mean less diversity” by The Economist. 11 For further information; see Finnegan, 2002: 95ff.
European Journal of English Language, Linguistics and Literature Vol. 2 No. 1, 2015 ISSN 2059-2027
advanced literacy in Hebrew and it was mostly used for religious purposes. Initially, children
of Jewish settlers were educated in Hebrew language. Their parents would not speak Hebrew
so they were taught by Jewish teachers who were minority in number but could speak
Hebrew. These children did not live with their parents but lived in “kibbutz”, small
farmhouses, with these teachers. The basic vocabularies, which were enjoyed in
“kindergarten” or “carpentry”, were slowly taught to these children from the beginning where
“the mother tongue begins” (Fishman, 1996: 7). In 1906 the founding of Tel Aviv, the first
Hebrew city, reasonably affected education system and provided spread of Hebrew language
over all territory. Then, the political campaigns were held to establish Hebrew as an official
language in England which entered Jerusalem in 1918. During this period, Hebrew was under
English mandate but after official establishment of Israel state, government took English
away from its official status and Hebrew became the official language of the state. Israel
educated new comers by providing “full-time Hebrew programs” and therefore, immigrants
were integrated in a short time. Just fifty years later Hebrew was a language of “sport,
physics, and politics”, which means national language (Spolsky, 2004: 191-4). They created a
natural environment for Hebrew speech community in Israel. This proved that Hebrew was
largely accepted by society. This revitalization caused, however, an endangerment of Arabic
in this territory within time as Spolsky indicated (Ibid).
Socio-cultural tolerance
The reasons which make one language more dominant may change within the nations and
societies. The dominant language, for example, has more speakers, more prestigious history,
or has been given an influential role by the government (Grosjean, 1982, as cited in Romaine,
1995:9; Crystal, 1992: 217-51). However all these dominances do not legalise the hegemony
of one group on another. If these start to be exaggerated by dominant society, the
polarisations appear among the communities. These polarisations occasion assimilations,
integrations and even killings. In 1993, for example 14 members of Ticuna tribe were killed
in Amazonas and in 14 others who are the members of Yanomami village were killed in
Brazil/Venezuelan border in 1993 (Crystal, 2000: 75). This uneasiness between societies may
not always be as cruel as this example but it may cause monolingual nationalist societies to
come out in the end.
Andrew Gonzalez, an educator and linguist, said that “Monolingualism occur[ed] only if the
person lives isolated in the mountains or in remote islands without access to mass media or
any kind of schooling” (as cited in Galliot, 2007: 1). However, monolingualism may also be
seen in metropolitans of countries if there is not a cultural tolerance to the people who enjoy
another language there as Wurm (1998) has written before.12
Firstly, they may totally shift to
majority’s language and they may also completely forget their own language within time.
Secondly, they may maintain to isolate themselves in suburban areas and do not use majority
language, of course for a short time, and then most probably give up their own language.13
What is the reason for these conditions? One can also formulate some other reasons but the
primary criterion is clearly socio-cultural prejudices.
Socio-cultural prejudice can be defined as the intolerability of dominant group against
another group. Socio-cultural prejudices may emerge as a result of “cultural
12 In “Language Acquisition is a Matter of Exposure”, article by Lorena Galliot, published April 26, 2007, in IHT News, (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/26/news/alang.php) 13 For further information; see Crystal, 2000: 80.
minority children need to use both languages, and “code-switching” between languages takes
place in sentence levels:
Kodomotachi liked it. (Japanese/English bilingual)
“The children liked it.” (Recorded by Nishimura 1986, as cited in Romaine, 1995:
2).
Have agua, please. (Spanish/English bilingual)
“Have water, please.” (Recorded by Kessler 1984, as cited in Romaine, 1995: 2).
Parent’s attitude to transmission of language is an internal factor. Families may not be willing
to teach their languages to their children. In one of his reportage a short time before dying,
Tevfik Esenç,17
for example, answered that “No. We thought that it would be shame to other
people if we spoke another language [Ubykh]”18
, when, Zeynep Attikkan (2004), a reporter
of newspaper, asked whether he had taught Ubykh to his children. In contrast, this attitude
changes within different societies. In her study on Turkish and Yugoslavian minorities living
in Austria, Brizić (2006), for instance, proved that Turkish and former Yugoslavian families
had different transmission behaviours to teach their languages to the children; in that, Turkish
parents are much more liable to shift their languages when compared to former Yugoslavian
families (351).19
Discontinuities in minority languages and linguistic prejudices
It is natural that there are different dialects in the same minority language. This has a crucial
function in terms of linguistic diversity. They refer, however, natural disadvantages if we
accept that the factor of the number of population is primarily determining factor in
maintenance of language and its status in a society. Alune language, spoken in Central
Maluku, for instance, has been identified with its three different dialects; “north, central, and
south” (Florey, 2001: 114). These three dialects are distinguishable by their phonology and
lexical differences. Florey (2001) informed that the north dialect was enjoyed in nineteen
villages; central dialect in six villages, while south dialect was used just in Kairantu, but
nowadays it is thought to be nearly extinct (Ibid).
As a result of language contacts, language transfers from the majority societies may result in
discontinuities, “stabilization”, “fossilization” or “integration” in phonological level
(Wolfram, 2007: 80). In Cajun English, spoken by the descendants Acadian French in
Louisiana in the United States, for example, there are phonological transfers from French,
such as “the stopping of inter-dental fricatives, as in tink for think or dough for though, and
the use of heavy nasalization (a nasalized vowel instead of vowel plus nasal segment) in
words like man and pin, are being recycled and intensified in the dialect of English” (Ibid).
Furthermore, some other sociolinguistic studies showed that “the order of linguistic
constraints [was] not constant […] and constitute[d] clear cases of discontinuities within
speech community. Kay (1978) and Kay & McDaniel (1979), for example, found out that
“the New York City speech community speakers of Jewish extraction raise[d] front vowels
17 [sic] The man’s name is misspelt as “Tefvik Esenc” by Nettle and Romaine (2000: 3) and Romaine (2007: 116), my usage is correct here. 18 My own translation. 19 This condition is called “linguistic suicide” in linguistic literature.
European Journal of English Language, Linguistics and Literature Vol. 2 No. 1, 2015 ISSN 2059-2027
more often than back vowels whereas those of Italian extraction exhibit raise[d] these sounds
more frequent with back vowels”.20
These linguistic factors firstly charge the availability of input acquisition and then affect the
vital role of intergenerational mother tongue transmission, and thirdly remove a natural
language learning environment or speech community, as linguistic authorities largely put
stress on (e.g. Fishman, 1996; Beck and Lam, 2006; Romaine, 2007). However, more
importantly another factor does actually appear above all these reasons and it closely relates
not only to the minority but also the majority. In this point, linguistic prejudices have also a
crucial part in minority language loss since it is highly possible for a minority individuals to
acquire their own language more or less and to enjoy it to a certain time but to keep it for a
longer time and teach it to their next generations are the other sides of this process. If I am
right, they will probably use and teach that language if they find an appropriate speech
environment and do not get a negative impression and feedback from other people. Brizić
(2006) suggested that “a positive attitude [...] towards the societies of the country of
[immigrant or native minorities] turned out to provide a solid basis for educational and
linguistic success in the immigration context, as they usually go hand in hand with high
linguistic self-confidence in the L2 and a good command of both languages” (345). This
requires a natural environment not an artificial one as a Gaelic-speaking man said:
I speak the Gaelic here with my parents and when I go up to the [hotel, bar], but I
speak it not because I have to but because this is what we speak. I like the Gaelic.
But if it is going to become something artificial, then well, I won't feel like speaking
it at all. I don't want Gaelic to be kept alive by making it artificial... For myself, I'd
prefer if it died (MacDonald 1997:218, as cited in Romaine, 2007: 125.).
If this atmosphere cannot be provided, it is unavoidable that linguistically prejudiced
reactions will automatically occur. Well, how can these reactions be observed within society?
In this sense, Roberts et al. (2005) wrote that:
Twenty per cent of all the consultations we filmed contained misunderstandings
caused by language/cultural differences, where talk itself is the problem. These
misunderstandings related to issues of language and self-presentation rather than
culturally-specific health beliefs. This challenges the literature on culture and
ethnicity which exoticises patients from linguistic minorities (Roberts et al. 2005:
473, as cited in Piller, 2007: 218).
As one can see linguistic prejudices are mostly reasoned by linguistic misunderstandings.
This mutually challenges both minorities and majorities. For example, varieties of Brazilian
Portuguese used by people from poorer sectors were directly linked to “cognitive poverty”
and “mental deficits” by majorities. In this context Massini-Cagliari (2003) reported that
“those who do not speak correctly, do not think properly [...] because judgements on
language extend to those who speak it, speakers of non-standard varieties are automatically
considered non-capable workers and, consequently, non capable individuals” (17-8).
In the long term such attitudes may hold places in people’s minds and turn into a common
20 This also demonstrated that Labov's “principle of uniformity of variation”, claiming the speakers of the same “speech community” will tend to use the same variations, is not current among minority societies, as Mougeon & Nadasdi (1998: 41-2) cited.
European Journal of English Language, Linguistics and Literature Vol. 2 No. 1, 2015 ISSN 2059-2027
behaviour against other’s language. This attitude interestingly might appear among speakers
of the same minority language. Example is from Ireland; according to a report from BBC
News, Manchan Magan (2006), a television presenter, travelled to Ireland in order to observe
whether Irish language is being spoken by, as claimed, 1.6 million people. During the trip, he
enjoyed Irish language and attempted to interact with other people. He experienced tragic
events; for instance, he was “kicked out of bars”, “served the wrong food”, and “given the
wrong directions”. Furthermore, a shopkeeper told him to speak in English otherwise to leave
from the shop in Dublin. He said “In some ways if you are speaking Irish some people will
think it's a weapon of war, or they will think you're just showing off”. When he came to
Belfast, he thought that he would feel little bit free to use Irish but he saw that the conditions
were similar to the other areas he had visited. At the end of his trip, he wrote that “[...] a few
people talked to me in English saying that it was a sweet enough language as long as it wasn't
shoved down their throats. But then if I was warned eventually that if I did insist on speaking
Irish on the Shankill that I was liable to end up in hospital very soon”.21
Even further the linguistic prejudices may turn into individual or institutional policies against
minority language even if political recognitions are granted by the government. The event
noted in Scotland proved this idea. Scotland has 60.000 Welsh speakers who have been using
Welsh for one thousand and five hundred years. According to a report from BBC News, the
Boyle family wanted to give a Gaelic name to their child but they were not allowed by the
General Register Office for Scotland. The authorities assigned the reason that Gaelic was
regarded as a minority language and asked them to change the name. Then Mr. Boyle reacted
against the decision. After an investigation it was revealed that there was not any legal
prohibition for them to use Gaelic names.22
These events may be seen as small exceptions by some people but it is obvious that they have
deep impacts in the community; in the following stages these prejudiced attitudes may turn
into discriminations and in the long run they are actually threats to continuance of that
language. For example, in his report published in Irish Examiner (an Irish daily) Dúnbarrach
(2006) wrote about the case of Máire Nic, a Belfast drama teacher and “young Irish speaker
fighting discrimination against people for speaking their own languages”. Dúnbarrach also
noted that “Discrimination against linguistic groups is always the first instrument of
oppression used against people and it is invariably the last to go”. Such events are evidently
much more discouraging than state politics or economic conditions.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, this study surveyed the socio-cultural and linguistic reasons behind minority
language loss. My view is not so pessimistic about language policies but it is obvious that just
politic or economic based reasons are neither only reason nor only answers to minority
language losses as Mühlhäusler (2002) writes “Empowering languages and making them
more competitive by giving them grammars, lexicons, writing systems, and school syllabuses
is a recipe that ignores a basic ecological fact: What supports one language may not support
another language. Each language requires its own ecological system” (376). Because of the
reversible sense of policies, they may not function as they are expected. People need to
regard the non-political factors as Spolsky (2004) noted (e.g. language practices and beliefs,
21 “No English? No Irish more like”, story from BBC News, published: 29/09/2006. 22 “Gaelic first for parents”, story from BBC News, published: 03/06/2003.
European Journal of English Language, Linguistics and Literature Vol. 2 No. 1, 2015 ISSN 2059-2027
Barbour, S. (2000). Britain and Ireland: The Varying Significance of Language for
Nationalism. In Stephen Barbour and Cathie Carmishael (Eds.), Language and
Nationalism in Europe. (pp. 18-43). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beck, D. and Lam, Y. (2006). Language Loss and Linguistic Suicide: A Case Study from the
Sierra Norte de Puebla, Mexico. In Sarah Cummins, Brigit Janoski, and Patricia A.
Shaw, (Eds.). All the Things You Are: A Festschrift for Jack Chambers. (pp. 1-11). To-
24 Tables 3 and 4 were retrieved from the article, “From mother tongue to meal ticket. Why the Welsh Language is making a comeback”. See <http://www.economist.com/node/4275132>